, 1887-01-19

'SSN so Us1 w ANAG O0A w
stay the hand of the evictor and also the
hand of the assassin, and the movement
would end by putting astOp to what the
G. executive had been vainly trying TO do for
100 yearS--agrarian assassination in Ire.
land. Ee would go on in the work, with
the help of God, as long as he lived. After
speaking for an hour and ten minutes Mr..
Dillon concluded amidst applause.
The solicitor-Genera replied. He said
he would ask the Court, as the prime guar
dian of peace and order in this part of the
United Kingdom, to pronounce i'll terms
clear and unmiStakable as illegal "the
plan of campaign" which was supported
10y the speeches OF Mr.. Dillon and given
il. evidence in court. With reference to
the language in the two speeches delivered
by the dcfendant-language which he said
he would repeat-he melted the people of
this country to combine in an organisation
which he 1.-THE Solicitor eneraD submitted
was of a grossly illegal character, which
would bring the people into conflict with
the law, aud if pursued would result in
social anarchy and be fatal to the prospect
ty and advancement of the country. The
Solicitor General read extracts from Mr..
Dill0n'S speeches, and commented on them.
He asked the Court to hold that the lam
guagr Of these speeches was illegal, but
for this violation of the law no severe
punishment was asked, but simply that
Mr.. Dillon should give bail for his good
behaviour, SO that if he persisted in this
line of conduct he might be fully aware of
The consequences he incurred.
Mr.. Justice O'Brien. in delivering the
Judgment Of the Court, said they We're
called upon by the Grown to exercise II
jurisdiction which had been established by
d decision Of the court, at no distant peri
cd, in the case of "SrymOur V. Davitt."
1t was conlended by the Grown that the
decision in that case left little margin of
discretion, while the contrary was urged
on behalf Of the traverser. In the Case of
~"SeymOnr V. Davitt" the defendant Davitt
WAS charged with having urged the tenan-
try from the west of Ireland to take pos
session of the rich land in the midland
counties of I@relae4 lah1AE I34GggY SIaR.L having
EG%emb bne 10 5e Ky s,t q fPaXIg W TrS9hR'S In l' t%e
Judgment Of ChjaeF JhstfeeGfSf Both state
ments were relied 9dp8oTnf afIt ifFSa decision
requiring Davitt to give ysectrfty to be Of
good behaviour, and While hR'dwelt upon
the improhability Of the advice as to the
agrarian inSurrectiOn being followed, he
pointed out tie serious consequences which
might result therefrom. Mr.. Justice Law
son in giving Judgment, did not define
separately the charges made against Davitt
but held that the language used was liable
to lead TO crime and outrage. Lord JUS
tice Barry, then q member of the Court,
cOncurred in the judgment. The iuris-
dictiOn of the COurt was not restricted ne
cessarily to offences directly involving q
breach of the public peace, except, indeed,
as far as all seditiOus offences may have
that effect. The jurisdiction of the Court
could be no longer disturbed or questioned.
The question then remained, Was the
case a proper one for the exercise of that
jurisdictions The Crown contended that
this movement was a conspiracy. A con.
Spiracy need not he entered into for crimi-
nal objects a wrongful object was snf6-
cicnt to maintain the charge. If persons
combined to ruin another in his trade, or
to %impoverisl q particular Class, they would
be guilty of conSpiracy !; fiide4l it might
be said that in common 7aW iahy combina.
ton to injure ,aaIIthird ppeersBf Ms a conspi.
racy. Tenants !Htiggh6f 1f6tgFmHfiR9 g whether
they would i lad aSeeif At certain
rents, but beyond that tphheeyY e51fIIId not go,
as, by doing this, theyyIddYo6ld be infringing
the legal rights of others. Could any per.
son stand at the door of bank or shop
and urge upon all entering to combine to
refuse to pay their debts or bills unless
they were reduced in amount to what they
themselves might determines Lord Fitz.